“Scientists explain what is already there;
engineers create something that never happened. ”
A. Einstein
The inventor of the slat Gustav Lachmann at the end of the thirties of the last century proposed to equip the tailless with a freely floating wing, placed in front of the wing. This wing was equipped with a servo-wheel, with the help of which its lifting force was regulated. It served to compensate for the additional diving moment of the wing arising from the release of the shield. Since Lachmann was an employee of Handley Page, she was the owner of a patent for this technical solution and this idea is mentioned under this brand in the technical literature. But there is still no practical embodiment of this idea! What is the reason?
Balancing losses
The wing of the aircraft, which creates lift, has an accompanying, one might say, negative by-product in the form of a dive moment, which tends to introduce the aircraft into a dive. To prevent the aircraft from diving, there is a small wing on its tail - a stabilizer, which prevents this dive by creating a downward, that is, negative, lifting force. Such an aerodynamic design of the aircraft is called “normal”. Since the lift of the stabilizer is negative, it is combined with the gravity of the aircraft, and the wing must have a lift in excess of gravity.
The difference of these forces is called balancing losses, which can reach up to 20%.
But the Wright Brothers' first flying plane did not have such losses, because a small wing - a destabilizer that prevented diving, was placed not behind the wing, but in front of it. Such an aerodynamic design of an airplane is called a duck. And in order to prevent the aircraft from diving, the destabilizer must create an upward, that is, positive, lifting force. It is combined with the lifting force of the wing, and this sum is equal to the gravity of the aircraft. As a result, the wing should create a lift less than gravity. And no loss in balancing!
– .
, - , «» . – . , , . , , – . – , .
, . , , , 15 25 . , . , – , – . , 7 25.
, , , , . - , , .
, «» «» , . . . – . , . , , . . «» ( ), ( ) 10%. «» , , 10% – . «». (. . 1).
)
, . , , . , , «» . , « », , .
, .
«».
, , , «».
«» , . . «» . «» 1986 .
«», , , .
, , . , , , , . 1992 (2). , . - . , , , .
, « » , , . «». , , , . , – .
« »
« », .
— , , , , . , – , – . , , . , , , .
, , .. . . – .
« » . (3) . (4).
«»
, « » , «». . , . , « » , . , , «» . «» , , , , .
. . -1. , 45 , — . , , . .
«». «» . , . . , , .
«-»
«» . , , (5). , . 2. 1 3 1. 4 6 5,7, 9,10 1 3 8. 12 6 . 1 3 , . , , 2 , 1 . . 1 3 . , , , 5 7 1.
)
, . . «» .
«-»
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hrphi2s_Do
! , . , 1 , 3 . – . , , . – «». , . 3.
)
(6). 1 4, 1 . 1 4 , , . . . 4 , 1. 6 , 4 5 4 . 1, . . .
, , 7 .
, .. 3 4 – 1.
, . 2 9 8 7 . 7 4 .
, , 4, 1 . 8 3, 9 5.
«», . 68% . , , , . «» , 20 – 30 % .
« »
– , . , , . «». «-» «-» « » .
« » , 33% 23%.
, . . , , , , «». «» -144 , . . , , . .
« »
. , , , . 4, (7).
)
. - , . , ( ), .
, , , . , «» . , «», «» ?
«-» « »
, , — . , .
. 5 ( ) 1 . 2 , 3 4, 1. 4 5 6, 7. 6, 5 8, 9 10. 10 11, 12 13 2 . 13 14 2 . 15 10 .
. , , , 7 , 10 , .. 13 , 2 . 2 , 7 13 .
1 2 . 7 2 . 8 12. 2 , 1 , .
«».
, 7 13 , . , , 7, 6 5. 2 .
, 2 7 .
7 13 2 . , .
, , « » . « ». «-» (8).
« »
, , .
, «» . , , , , . , , .
, « ». , . – , , . . . . , . , . №2710955.
The totality of the above inventions is probably the last unused information aerodynamic resource to increase the third and more economic efficiency of subsonic aviation.
Yuri Krasnov
LITERATURE
- D. Sobolev. The Centenary of the Flying Wing, Moscow, Rusavia, 1998, p. 100.
- Yu. Krasnov. RF patent No. 2000251.
- A. Yurkonenko. Alternative "duck". Technique - Youth 2009-08. Page 6-11
- V. Lapin. When will the "weather duck" fly? General aviation. 2011. No8. Page 38-41.
- Yu. Krasnov. RF patent No. 2609644.
- Yu. Krasnov. RF patent No. 2651959.
- Yu. Krasnov. RF patent No. 2609620.
- Yu. Krasnov. RF patent No. 2666094.